The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Abatis]

Precedent?

There were several SC decisions regarding gun rights...and ALL of them dealt with them as they pertained to the militia clause

SO much for precedent huh?

SO much for you being able to support your claim and simply cite these decisions and quote where the "militia clause" is applied to the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

And the 2A has no bearing on gun rights other than for their use in the militia...which no longer exists

The Second Amendment is all about the individuals right to firearm ownership...

 

[Rustic]

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.

The Second Amendment represents what it is today… The absolute right for individual to own personal firearms. The only one that can fuck that up is the individual themselves.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

And the 2A has no bearing on gun rights other than for their use in the militia...which no longer exists

The Second Amendment is all about the individuals right to firearm ownership...

You went braind dead on the first clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State says it's more than what you claim it is.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.

The Second Amendment represents what it is today… The absolute right for individual to own personal firearms. The only one that can fuck that up is the individual themselves.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State seems to be left out by you. And the last clause has also been outdated. Only 5 words still apply and even that is questionable.

 

[Rustic]

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.

The Second Amendment represents what it is today… The absolute right for individual to own personal firearms. The only one that can fuck that up is the individual themselves.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State seems to be left out by you. And the last clause has also been outdated. Only 5 words still apply and even that is questionable.

The second amendment in a nutshell, personal firearm ownership shall not be infringed

 

[Lesh]

Please cite those decisions and either include the page number or better still, quote the specific passage where SCOTUS framed the citizen's right to arms within the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Cruikshank...Presser...and Miller

If you are unfamiliar with them you shouldn't be commenting on this

 

[Lesh]

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

Tell me, what good is an Organized Militia? Can the state afford such a thing? Does each state of the trillions of dollars to support, equip and man an Organized Militia in the intent of the Founding Fathers? When you can answer that to satisfaction then I will agree with you.

The Second Amendment represents what it is today… The absolute right for individual to own personal firearms. The only one that can fuck that up is the individual themselves.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State seems to be left out by you. And the last clause has also been outdated. Only 5 words still apply and even that is questionable.

The second amendment in a nutshell, personal firearm ownership shall not be infringed

Within the framework of a "Well Regulated Militia"

 

[Abatis]

I took a look at both of these cases.

Cases V was, more or less, an illegal weapons dealer who was running illegal ammo in large quantities. His defense was that the laws for the US did not apply since it was done in Puerto Rico and not the US.

Uhhhhh, no.

Let's look at what you missed in Cases . . .

In Cases, the 1st Circuit in examining the 2nd Amendment claim, looked at the Supreme Court's decision in Miller and noted that while SCOTUS said it was "not within judicial notice" that the shotgun there had military usefulness, it actually was in common knowledge that just about any modern firearm meets the Miller protection criteria:

"the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon.
​

The Cases court goes on and explains what legal circumstances -- regarding the possession and use of guns by private citizens -- would be compelled if the "Miller rule" were to be enforced:

In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute.

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns . . . "​

This hyperbolic description of course was deemed unacceptable (even though it was correct). The Cases court then opined (without any legal justification) that the framers couldn't possibly have intended to bind Congress so strictly.

OK, now the Cases court had a clean slate. The Cases court turns to the facts of the case and since the "Miller rule" is now thrown aside, the focus of SCOTUS to discern and decide if a type of arm has 2nd Amendment protection -- military usefulness, can also be cast aside.

The Cases court (after acknowledging that the revolver would be protected under Miller) substitutes the focus on the weapon's usefulness, for a focus on the mindset of the person and a mandate for his physical attachment to a military organization before claiming any 2nd Amendment immunity. The Cases court changes the rule:

"We therefore turn to the record in the case at bar. From it it appears that on or about August 27, 1941, the appellant received into his possession and carried away ten rounds of ammunition, and that on the evening of August 30 of the same year he went to Annadale's Beach Club on Isla Verde in the municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico, equipped with a .38 caliber Colt type revolver of Spanish make which, when some one turned out the lights, he used, apparently not wholly without effect, upon another patron of the place who in some way seems to have incurred his displeasure. While the weapon may be capable of military use, or while at least familiarity with it might be regarded as of value in training a person to use a comparable weapon of military type and caliber, still there is no evidence that the appellant was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon under the circumstances disclosed was in preparation for a military career."
​

And Abracadabra! The "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was created and inserted into the federal courts of the USA.

Heller invalidated this illegitimate reasoning and rendered infirm the dozens of subsequent lower court opinions that are grounded in Cases v US.

I'll do Tot for the "state's right" later tonite . . .

 

[Abatis]

Cruikshank...Presser...and Miller

If you are unfamiliar with them you shouldn't be commenting on this

LOL.

In 1873, Louisiana had no militia; it was disbanded by Congress.

Even if Louisiana did have a state militia the two citizens in whom SCOTUS recognized a "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" (that of carrying guns for self defense in public) were Freemen, Blacks who by federal law were forbidden from being enrolled in the militia.

Try again.

 

[Lesh]

Cruikshank...Presser...and Miller

If you are unfamiliar with them you shouldn't be commenting on this

LOL.

In 1873, Louisiana had no militia; it was disbanded by Congress.

Even if Louisiana did have a state militia the two citizens in whom SCOTUS recognized a "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" (that of carrying guns for self defense in public) were Freemen, Blacks who by federal law were forbidden from being enrolled in the militia.

Try again.

Jesus dude. Read the decision.

 

[Abatis]

You went braind dead on the first clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State says it's more than what you claim it is.

SCOTUS has been saying you are wrong for going on 140 years.

The right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

 

[Lesh]

You went braind dead on the first clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State says it's more than what you claim it is.

SCOTUS has been saying you are wrong for going on 140 years.

The right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

That's what I have been trying to tell you

Cruikshank
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

 

[Abatis]

Jesus dude. Read the decision.

I have. There is nothing in the decision about militia, the Court dos not utter the word.

How can two Freemen who were barred from enrolling in the militia have a militia enrollment qualification placed on them?

 

[Abatis]

That's what I have been trying to tell you

Cruikshank
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

You make no sense.

Before I declare you schizophrenic and put you on ignore, explain why you've said the right is filtered through the "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[2aguy]

Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...

Heller V DC already upheld the special license to have a fully operational handgun in your home. It's already been contested and failed. It's deemed constitutional. You can scream "Unconstitutional" till your head explodes but the state has that right. And, in case you don't know, in case of levels, the Government of DC is equal to a State in most ways.

There you go again. Equaling gun rights to the first amendment rights and a few other amendment rights which none of them are contained in the 2nd amendment. When are you going to learn. They day that the Government accepts that the Gun is a Higher Being, this might be true. And in your mind, you might think so. But it just ain't going to happen. The rules for Religion and Voting are completely different than gun rights. I guess you think enough time has passed that you think that we will have forgotten the discussion we already have had over and over again. Hope you got that ass velcroed since I am just about ready to hand it back to you once again.

No, it hasn't. The state doesn't have that Right, ask the democrats if they had the Right to require a Poll Tax on voting. The rules for religion and voting are not different from owning a gun, they are all Rights, and not to be blocked by states or the Feds.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Please cite those decisions and either include the page number or better still, quote the specific passage where SCOTUS framed the citizen's right to arms within the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

No, he was just following SCOTUS precedent, saying that the right to arms of the people is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. As Heller says, (re-affirming 133 year old precedent that recognizes the foundational constitutional principle of pre-existing rights):

"III. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

You would do well to follow Scalia's chiding of Stevens when Stevens dissects the drafting history of the Amendment:

"It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one".​

It is even worse to invent conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right by "interpreting" the words of the 2nd Amendment, chosen only to recognize and secure the right to arms -- NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE OR ESTABLISH THE RIGHT.

It is you and your ilk who stand in opposition to SCOTUS holdings on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.

Precedent?

There were several SC decisions regarding gun rights...and ALL of them dealt with them as they pertained to the militia clause

SO much for precedent huh?

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

And the 2A has no bearing on gun rights other than for their use in the militia...which no longer exists

You didn't read Heller.....before you comment on gun law you should read Heller, Caetano v Massachusettes, Macdonald v Chicago, Miller v U.S.....and the others...

 

[Lesh]

A. You're focusing on a SCOTUS decision that says that the 2A does not cover gun rights. It says this because the charge was that the militia had deprived the ex-slaves of their second amendment rights.

B. You're also ignoring the other decisions which also dealt with gun rights in terms of the militia clause.

Please put me on ignore.

That way I can rebutt your nonsense without having to put up with your insanity directly.